• Tired of adverts on RWI? - Subscribe by clicking HERE and PMing Trailboss for instructions and they will magically go away!

The Right To Bear Arms

i_like_shiney_things

Active Member
24/10/13
461
1
18
Wow... I can't believe how often I have to repeat this but here we go 'I don't believe we should take everyone's guns away' :)


Sent from my elephants anus via the medium of tapas talkas
 

Luthier

Respected Member
30/9/09
5,050
9
0
:rofl:
We got it, buddy, we got it...
:D
We also know, that you live in Seoul, not in UK anymore.
I was talking about stupid UK laws, there's still plenty of good people in England, even my daughter lives in London, and these idiotic laws leave good people there absolutely unprotected.
 

sub4me

Legendary Member
30/4/06
11,221
15
0
Forget regulating who buys a gun, start regulating who can reproduce.

Long story short for me: I respect how people feel about total gun ban. But I need my guns...

:thumbsup:

I've got a bunch of guns, including an AR, been around guns my whole life.. I'm not going to shoot anyone, no one has ever been harmed. On the other hand, I've had some great times shooting! Realistically, the worst case scenario is what? That I have the ability to protect my family if someone breaks in the house?

Crazy lunatics will get something else to harm/kill/maim people with if not a gun. Anything from an ice pick, duct tape, to a rusty hatchet has the potential to be the scariest most violent gruesome object one has ever seen.


Very good points.
 

Alex_P1

I'm Pretty Popular
11/5/12
2,030
14
38
I was talking about stupid UK laws, there's still plenty of good people in England, even my daughter lives in London, and these idiotic laws leave good people there absolutely unprotected.

The laws in the UK are actually more than fit for purpose. There is no such thing as a burglary involving firearms here so no one is 'unprotected'.

I own 6 firearms and would never consider using any for 'home defence' as I'm not paranoid about an imaginary bogeyman coming to get me in the night.

If you need that where you live, either live with it or move, don't assume other places are 'idiotic' just because you don't understand their situation.
 

thedoover

Snow Monkey Ambassador
Supporter
Certified
15/6/10
2,120
27
48
Im jumping in at the end without reading the middle, but in the majority of mass shootings in the US in recent years (10-15 years, and I say majority because there may be 1 or 2 that dont apply) the shooter was mentally unstable, had been treated for a mental condition, or some similar nuttiness.

Only absolute solutions are:

1. Make sure no guns are available, or very difficult to access;
2. Make sure no crazy's are out there running in the wild that want to kill kill kill cuz mama didnt love them;

Chicago, DC, California all have stricter gun laws than elsewhere. They are not statistically less likely to have gun related crime, and in fact in the case of the first two have very high murder rates.
 

Luthier

Respected Member
30/9/09
5,050
9
0
The laws in the UK are actually more than fit for purpose. There is no such thing as a burglary involving firearms here so no one is 'unprotected'.

I own 6 firearms and would never consider using any for 'home defence' as I'm not paranoid about an imaginary bogeyman coming to get me in the night.

If you need that where you live, either live with it or move, don't assume other places are 'idiotic' just because you don't understand their situation.

I suppose you live in Buckingham Palace, Alex.
Here's bad news for you:
Recent statistics from Britain indicate that a citizen is attacked in their own home by a violent burglar once every 30 minutes. Those statistics, along with my thoughts on British gun control, the British ban on self defense, and what all this means for law-abiding British citizens, can be seen below:
A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 – 20 per cent – of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.
The folly of British gun control

In a knee-jerk reaction to a pair of high-profile shootings, the British government enacted strict gun control at the national level. These anti gun laws went as far as to ban the .22 target pistols used by the British Olympic Pistol Team, forcing those athletes to go to Switzerland and France to practice their sport.
However, the gun ban laws didn’t stop criminals from acquiring and misusing guns. Instead, British criminals buy their guns the black market, or simply manufacture their own illegal guns. Crime statistics reflect this fact, showing a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the gun ban took effect, and a doubling of gun-related crime in the first decade after the gun ban took effect."


So, please, take your pink glasses off.


 
D

d4m.test

Guest
+1000 w/ Alex.

THIS is the kind of discussion we Americans should be having with each other. Like you, I obviously disagree with some viewpoints, but I respect my mates here for the thoughtfulness displayed.

I'm sorry, one more point: No one's guns are going to be "taken away" from them; that's the bogeyman argument. Besides, it'd be logistically impossible, would not be supported by most people, and would be unConstitutional.

I'm done with this topic. I salute the thoughtful mates who contributed to this discussion, and some rep points for "Shiny Things" for creating a lively debate amongst our members.

Best Regards to All,

dave :thumbsup:

Gents, this page especially shows a healthy respect for varying viewpoints and the opinion of others on a topic which often precludes such discussion. I'm proud of the forum!

Now if we could just talk about watches in that way we'd be laughing!

Rep for everyone
 

thedoover

Snow Monkey Ambassador
Supporter
Certified
15/6/10
2,120
27
48
Let me add, that the purpose of the second amendment was so the government could be overthrown in the event of it becoming like the one that had just been overthrown.

So some would argue that limiting the types of weapons that civilians have access to runs contrary to the intent of the second amendment.

Others might say the second amendment was to establish a militia for the quick formation of an army in defense of our fledgling nation. Those people might argue that since we dont need to whip together a posse for our local protection until the federal army can reach us in a few weeks, that we dont need the second amendment anymore.

I find something less extreme than position A, but nowhere near point B is where I stand.
 

mzcool

I'm Pretty Popular
2/6/13
1,090
0
0
Let me add, that the purpose of the second amendment was so the government could be overthrown in the event of it becoming like the one that had just been overthrown.

So some would argue that limiting the types of weapons that civilians have access to runs contrary to the intent of the second amendment.

Others might say the second amendment was to establish a militia for the quick formation of an army in defense of our fledgling nation. Those people might argue that since we dont need to whip together a posse for our local protection until the federal army can reach us in a few weeks, that we dont need the second amendment anymore.

I find something less extreme than position A, but nowhere near point B is where I stand.


Limiting the types of weapons people can have has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear all arms.

Onto gun control, obviously taking away everyones guns is impossible. The best solution is strict background checks, with psychological profiles being made, and the closing of loopholes as I stated before. And yes, strict fines and possibly jail time for people who leave their weapons unsecured in their house.
 

thedoover

Snow Monkey Ambassador
Supporter
Certified
15/6/10
2,120
27
48
Limiting the types of weapons people can have has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The First Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not the right to bear all arms.

Statements like that cant be approached as fact, never to be debated again. Limiting the types of weapons is a Second Amendment issue to many people, myself included.

Couldnt you say the same thing about any amendment? Saying there is an implied limitation on arms because the word "all" isnt in the text is like saying that there is an implied limitation on speech because it doesnt say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of ALL speech, or of ALL of the press; or the right of ALL the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The lack of ALL in the first amendment would imply that some speech is prohibited, some types of press can be limited, and some peaceful assembly isnt ok, and that is to be determined by your local, state or federal government. (I know some speech is prohibited aka fire in a theater, but that is why I put the last part in there about government.) But we ignore that it doesnt say ALL there.
 

mzcool

I'm Pretty Popular
2/6/13
1,090
0
0
Statements like that cant be approached as fact, never to be debated again. Limiting the types of weapons is a Second Amendment issue to many people, myself included.

Couldnt you say the same thing about any amendment? Saying there is an implied limitation on arms because the word "all" isnt in the text is like saying that there is an implied limitation on speech because it doesnt say:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of ALL speech, or of ALL of the press; or the right of ALL the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The lack of ALL in the first amendment would imply that some speech is prohibited, some types of press can be limited, and some peaceful assembly isnt ok, and that is to be determined by your local, state or federal government. (I know some speech is prohibited aka fire in a theater, but that is why I put the last part in there about government.) But we ignore that it doesnt say ALL there.


But you are right, some speech is prohibited, like libel or slander. Judges can do gag orders, etc.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that you can have any type of gun that you want, if it did, we'd be allowing people to have fully automatic weapons.
 

KBH

Mythical Poster
1/11/07
7,168
43
48
Chicago, DC, California all have stricter gun laws than elsewhere. They are not statistically less likely to have gun related crime, and in fact in the case of the first two have very high murder rates.

Well statistically speaking you are much more likely to die of lead poisoning from a bullet if you're young, black, and male by a huge margin. And statistically speaking, you're much more likely to be a young black man in either Washington DC or Chicago than the average resident of most every other US city.

You're also much more likely to be an illegal gun owner if you're a poor black youth from the inner city so the fact that they've introduced stricter gun laws in those two cities is an effect of the problem, not a cause.
 

Luthier

Respected Member
30/9/09
5,050
9
0
But you are right, some speech is prohibited, like libel or slander. Judges can do gag orders, etc.

The Second Amendment doesn't mean that you can have any type of gun that you want, if it did, we'd be allowing people to have fully automatic weapons.
We had rights to have fully automatic weapons, until Clinton banned it.
 

Alex_P1

I'm Pretty Popular
11/5/12
2,030
14
38
I suppose you live in Buckingham Palace, Alex.
Here's bad news for you:
Recent statistics from Britain indicate that a citizen is attacked in their own home by a violent burglar once every 30 minutes. Those statistics, along with my thoughts on British gun control, the British ban on self defense, and what all this means for law-abiding British citizens, can be seen below:
A householder is attacked by a violent burglar every 30 minutes. . . According to the BCS, householders came face-to-face with burglars in 20 per cent of domestic burglaries last year. . . Of the burglaries in which the victim came face-to-face with the intruder, violence was either used or threatened in 59 per cent of crimes. . . It was actually used in 40 per cent of cases. . . Tories estimated that householders came face-to-face with burglars in 57,000 – 20 per cent – of burglaries. . . Of these, 23,000 resulted in the burglar using violence against the householder.
The folly of British gun control

In a knee-jerk reaction to a pair of high-profile shootings, the British government enacted strict gun control at the national level. These anti gun laws went as far as to ban the .22 target pistols used by the British Olympic Pistol Team, forcing those athletes to go to Switzerland and France to practice their sport.
However, the gun ban laws didn’t stop criminals from acquiring and misusing guns. Instead, British criminals buy their guns the black market, or simply manufacture their own illegal guns. Crime statistics reflect this fact, showing a 40% increase in handgun related crime in the first two years after the gun ban took effect, and a doubling of gun-related crime in the first decade after the gun ban took effect."


So, please, take your pink glasses off.



I do not live in Buckingham Palace, I live in a perfectly normal semi-rural (by British standards - likely to be viewed more as suburban by those in the US) area outside a costal town. I was born here and moved away for 10 years while at university and doing my first job.

There has been one shooting which I can remember, which was a dispute brought down from London into a club.

I lived in Birmingham City centre for 8 years while a student, as Britain's second city it has it's fair share of crime and criminals. I had 3 attempted street robberies when I probably marked myself out as a target, drunk, alone and lost in the early hours of the morning. All had the "threat of violence", only one involved a weapon (knife), none were particularly successful for the perpetrator, one gained an empty wallet for his trouble, the other two got a selection of the following: two broken wrists, one broken jaw, a broken nose and a broken ankle. We're these Violent Crimes? I don't know, but I suppose they were for some of the participants. Was I prosecuted for defending myself? No, it was never even suggested as I used what was deemed Reasonable Force, the right I have under UK law, so your point about having a "ban on self-defence" are totally unfounded.

My point is that i still would never consider leaving the house with even a pocket knife for use in 'defence' of myself, the need simply isn't there. Does that mean I'd feel the same way if I lived in Compton or Watts, both places I found myself in by accident only a couple of weeks ago, no is the answer. It's horses for courses.

The UK has a long history of drunken brawling, par for the course for many on a night out, however, there is very little violent crime per capita when judged by US definitions of violent crime.

One of your sources, the Daily Mail, a so called newspaper would blame everything on gay Muslim immigrants if it could. It uses a culture of fear amongst the elderly to sell papers and is a joke amongst most. Another of your sources cites a Tory source, so is victim of political spin.

Undoubtably crimes involving violence are increasing in the UK, however, I'd be interested to see the true figures once moderated for increasing population, increased ability to report (cell phones) and detection through means other than reporting by victim or witness (CCTV, we have more cameras than anywhere else). The other thing to bear in mind is how statistics are manipulated to prove a point; "Danger of deaths from falling apples increase 100% in a single year! Blame gay Mexican bears, get them out of our country" screams the headline, 2 deaths in one year in a population of 350 million, up from one last year and nothing to do with bears, homosexual or otherwise, states the fact.

There is a reason the majority of police in the UK don't carry firearms, they don't want to. If the need was there, the situation would change.

I won't accuse you of wearing gloom tinted glasses as I've got no idea of where you live or your personal situation, however, take it from someone who lives in the UK, is a lifelong shooter (27 years of 33 so far) and is neither paranoid or deluded: UK gun control laws work well enough, they do not need to be loosened and the general population do not live in fear of being slaughtered in their beds.

All I'm doing is relaying my experiences based in a country very different to your own. Take them or leave them but don't tell me I'm wrong.
 

sub4me

Legendary Member
30/4/06
11,221
15
0
I think I should be able to drive a full loaded tank down the street if I want to.
 

KBH

Mythical Poster
1/11/07
7,168
43
48
I think I should be able to drive a full loaded tank down the street if I want to.

As long as you have the proper licenses, why not. Those tanks are hard to get tags for though. They're awful hard on the asphalt.
 

mzcool

I'm Pretty Popular
2/6/13
1,090
0
0
We had rights to have fully automatic weapons, until Clinton banned it.

Poor citizens, can't get a hold of M16s anymore. That damn tyrant!

Update: Its actually not illegal to own an automatic weapon. If it was manufactured before 1986, you can purchase it under strict regulations. New manufacturing and sales of them was banned under the Hughes Act in 1986, passed under your fellow Californian, Republican idol, and President, Ronald Reagan.

The Assault Weapons ban under the Clinton administration banned semi-auto weapons, not automatic ones.

I believe that if gun owners want to sound reasonable, they need to ditch the NRA. They should form their own new association.

The NRA is not there to represent gun owners, it's purpose is to protect the profits of gun manufacturers, while enriching it's administrators in the process.
 

KBH

Mythical Poster
1/11/07
7,168
43
48
We had rights to have fully automatic weapons, until Clinton banned it.

Actually, it was passed by the House of Representatives, then went to the Senate for confirmation before Slick Willy put his signature on the final law. I think that's called "The will of the people".

And besides, people with Federal Firearms Licenses can still possess and sell fully automatic rifles, as well as those people that owned them before the laws passage.

Even then, nobody came and confiscated their guns as you and the NRA would like us to believe is going to happen. They just can't sell or transfer them to anyone without a license.
 

Luthier

Respected Member
30/9/09
5,050
9
0
Poor citizens, can't get a hold of M16s anymore. That damn tyrant!

Update: Its actually not illegal to own an automatic weapon. If it was manufactured before 1986, you can purchase it under strict regulations. New manufacturing and sales of them was banned under the Hughes Act in 1986, passed under your fellow Californian, Republican idol, and President, Ronald Reagan.

The Assault Weapons ban under the Clinton administration banned semi-auto weapons, not automatic ones.

I believe that if gun owners want to sound reasonable, they need to ditch the NRA. They should form their own new association.

The NRA is not there to represent gun owners, it's purpose is to protect the profits of gun manufacturers, while enriching it's administrators in the process.
Semi-autos were never banned, I have a few. Any pistol is semi-automatic weapon.
And... I, honestly, don't know anything about NRA, or about what is their agenda, I simply don't care.
 

trandy16

I'm Pretty Popular
24/1/08
1,596
14
0
Well, it may be a matter of perspective. But a tool is there to be used. Tell that people who got shot by children ("My first Remington") or in fact by any person in a hot temper. Our country had plenty of arms (good ones at that) and see to where it lead.

Guns are one of the reason why we don't go on holiday in the US. In fact last time we wanted to return a rental car in Miami, we arrived in time to witness armed robbers flee the station and the police later told us that was a quite frequent occurence there. I do agree that the USA is nice in some places, but I don't like people bearing arms at all.

Do you know why the bad guys rob people at the car rental return? Because they know that the people returning their rental vehicles are not "locals"...rather tourists.....and therefore not armed....Florida residents are permitted to carry concealed weapons....the bad guys are merely picking on those that they know can't fight back.

This was well documented several years ago when Florida's concealed carry law went into effect.